.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Mr. Shaffer does it again.

Only when our ego-identities become wrapped up with some institutional abstraction – such as the state – can we be persuaded to invest our lives and the lives of our children in the collective madness of state action. We do not have such attitudes toward organizations with which we have more transitory relationships. If we find an accounting error in our bank statement, we would not find satisfaction in the proposition “the First National Bank, right or wrong.” Neither would we be inclined to wear a T-shirt that read “Disneyland: love it or leave it.”

Read the whole thing. He nails it pretty well, IMO.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Neither would we be inclined to wear a T-shirt that read “Disneyland: love it or leave it.”'

Sorry, but that is so funny given that this is the choice which workers at Disneyland are given. Hell, one day they may even be forced to wear such a T-shirt...

What makes me laugh is that is the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism and right-"libertarianism" in a nutshell.

That a right-"libertarian" exposes the authoritarian nature of private property is good. When they do it with such unawareness is even better!


9:15 AM  
Blogger Adem D. Kupi said...

That's actually a pretty interesting comment because it shows the context split between "worker" and "consumer".

What makes the ruling class the ruling class, perhaps, is that they are consumers of workers. (in all that implies)

But even in the realm of being a consumer, we are sometimes beholden to capitalist institutions when they become institutionalized enough. People waiting for their cable or phone to be installed, is one example.

I know what you're getting at here, and you're right about the "facts on the ground" but there's also a bunch of packaged concepts and hidden assumptions in your use of the term "private property" as the fundamental problem. This isn't only your own packaging, in fact it comes from right-libertarians themselves. (even many self-styled "anarcho"-capitalists would probably agree with you that Disneyland, for example, is private property)

A market anarchist could come back I suppose and say "well, then what we're in favor of needs a different name than 'private property', but it's not collectivized property either."
And in fact I would say that collectivized property is merely an advanced form of corporate property.

11:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home